I think that the negative label “antimonopolist” or the coordinate positive label “voluntarist” may be two of the more favorable labels because they both (a) emphasize the keystone of our argument and (b) do not elicit the attack and subsequent confusion whereby the other anarchists say that we are not actual anarchists because we do not want to dismantle the government, we merely want to privatize the government.
I know that many of use desire to both seem cool or rebellious via use of the word “anarchy” but also nevertheless seem intelligent and reasonable via use of the rigorous and impressive corpus of theory which Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard et alii stated in order to create some sort of bizarre but fascinating juxtaposition. But I think that we may be more effective with respect to the legitimization of our position if we cease to identify ourselves via the label “anarchist” which, as one example, the individuals at the G20 protests also identify themselves via. I also think that we may be more effective with respect to the legitimization of our position if we cease to claim that we want to dismantle the government (which always causes confusion) and begin to claim that we want to merely privatize the government and thus cause it to become a voluntary association and nonmonopolistic institution (which seems to avoid the aforementioned confusion).
I expect that the last point I which I stated will be the most controversial of the few points which I stated within this post.
I’ve long been an advocate of the label “voluntaryist” as it actually does have a long history and there isn’t too much debate over who “is a real voluntaryist” unlike anarchist and even libertarian.
Fully agreed. “Anarcho-capitalism” translates in the mind of the average person to “Chaotic Crony-Capitalism,” which is downright awful PR. In contrast, “antimonopolist” and “voluntarist” both bring up positive images.
I’d also like to point out that “antimonopolist” is the descriptive position (absence of monopoly), and “voluntarist” is the moral principle (absence of coercion). So they could also be combined into something like “antimonopoly-voluntarist.” As with “anarcho-capitalist,” the first part describes the structure of society and the second part professes a principle. They are of course two sides of the same coin, in that if a monopoly (on force) is allowed to form, the principle of voluntarism is jeopardized (just like how if anarchy is compromised in AnCap [i.e., a State forms], the capitalism part is jeopardized).
I have to say, I think “privatizing the government” has even worse connotations to the average person than “anarcho-capitalism,” not to mention that the public/private distinction is an artificial Statist construction. The government already is private - the problem is that it’s a territorial monopoly with good enough PR to make people think its existence is in the interest of everyone (the “public”).
I don’t think rebranding matters much. Anarcho-capitalism is about ideas, not aesthetics.
I have considered calling myself a voluntaryist because some of the people I am influenced by use that term, and I think it conveys more about a peaceful social order than anarchism. Not just to the person who hears me call myself a voluntaryist, but also as a reminder to myself of what it is I am working for.
Ultimately, heavy lifting will change the world. That means donations, that means educating people one on one or in groups, that means traveling, that means entrepreneurship.
You could do a lot for liberty, without ever adopting a label, and you can do absolutely nothing for liberty, and have a lot of interesting labels to describe yourself.
I did not really mean that we should rebrand our movement via some euphemism in order to attract superficial support. I instead simply meant that I think that the negative label “antimonopolist” and the coordinate positive label “voluntarist” explain our position less confusedly, more effectively. If we continue to use the label “anarchist” or “anarchocapitalist”, we will simply continue to confuse our potential adversaries and potential allies. If you want to experience an extreme example of that confusion, just reread some of the recent posts of one of the members of this forum, Poptech.
I understand that this issue is not the primary issue and, alone, cannot provide any support; but that does not mean that it is irrelevant.
If we use ambiguous terms, we will not able to convey to any one our ideas.
I agree, now. It would definitely be counterproductive to employ that distinction because it is fictitious and serves only to further the ideological mystification and hypostatization of the state, a monopoly government.
I still believe, though, that we should cease to claim that we want to dismantle the government and instead begin to claim that we want not to dismantle the government but to cause the government to become a voluntary association and nonmonopolistic institution.
I can’t disagree with this sentiment, but this in particular seems more like panarchism than the traditional conception of AnCap (at least by Rothbard, Hoppe, Long, et al.), although that would depend on exactly how you mean that the government would become nonmonopolistic without being dismantled (making it non-territorial?).
I have always interpreted the term “anarchocapitalism” as a combination of the term which conveys the policy which we want to instill, anarchy, and the term which conveys the result which we expect, capitalism. In other words, anarchocapitalists believe that if monopoly government were removed, private property and the results of such would be the result.
I do not think that either “antimonopolist” or “voluntarist” professes a principle; I think that it merely professes a policy. If I were to say that I am an antimonopolist and a voluntarist, you would have to ask me why I am such in order to learn what motivates me whether it is some sort of moral principle or some sort of mindless judgement. In fact, I think that the term “voluntarist” is synonymous to the term “antimonopolist” as the term “peace” is synonymous to the phrase “nonexistence of violence”.
In relation to the first point of this post, the terms “antimonopolist” and “voluntarist” only profess a policy, not also a result. In our view, if the policy antimonopolism/voluntarism were to be instilled, a system of private property, capitalism, would emerge.
Is that a weakness or is that a strength of those labels? Is it more effective to convey both the policy and the result within the label itself? Or is it more effective to convey only the policy within the label, to isolate our political position?
The term monopoly conveys fundamentally the same idea whether you subscribe to neoclassicoeconomics or austroeconomics vel cetera. It describes an institution which exists in a way whereby a certain collection of individuals must buy their product or services whether they want to or whether they do not want to.
In the case of our monopoly government, what determines the demarcation of that collection of individuals is location. If you live within the borders X, you must buy the products and services of our government. It is that criterion which makes an area become a nation. And it is that mechanism which implies that a nation cannot exist unless a monopoly government exists.
In order to correctly describe a government as a voluntary association and nonmonopolistic institution, it would have to not force any one whatever to buy its products and services. In such a situation, it would, possibly among other things, cease to be territorial.
the best thing is to have lots of equivalent names. some more provocative than others, some which emphasis one feature more than others. this means the people listening to the arguments dont focus on the label but the ideas. also different people are turned on by different things, whilst anarchy might turn people off who are intrigued by voluntarism, anarchy might be just the word to peak others interests..
its a case of different strokes, and no right answer. but knock yourself out discussing the merits and demerits
Good point, that way of looking at it also makes sense.
On reflection, I agree. It’s true that for many voluntarism may be a principle, but for others it could as well be just a policy not necessarily adopted for reasons of principle.
It seems here we are discussing at least three elements that one may wish to include in a label for one’s position: the policy, principle behind it, and the desired result. However, I’m not sure capitalism is the desired result any more than voluntarism is, because capitalism (free exchange) seems to be entailed in the notion of voluntarism (free association of all types). It also seems that, if voluntarism is the principle, it would be both the principle and the desired result. Or maybe more strictly speaking voluntarism is the principle and free association is the desired result. Perhaps the result of combining all three (for those who wish to include the principle in the label) would be something like “antimonopoly-voluntarism to achieve free association for all”?
This is my reasoning as well. It’s one thing to rely on labels, but another to be misinterpreted and needlessly discredited by most people right off the bat. I think the State wages its PR war largely through semantic obfuscation, so I consider semantic elucidation a primary goal for the advancement of libertarianism.
The above discussion with I. Ryan notwithstanding, I see potential in this idea as well. It seems to reflect the pluralistic nature of the libertarian movement, and even the pluralism on this board. In the Statist political context of course you want to present a united front and singular label, but outside that context I am not sure whether there is more value in a united or pluralistic approach. I can see potential arguments for both sides.
I do use the term “anarchy,” for several reasons: it’s better to call yourself an anarchist up front than be “outed” as an anarchist; if you call yourself an anarchist you can’t be confused with a Republican; it’s harder to justify compromises when your position is called anarchism; and with some audiences it actually is better P.R. than the alternatives.
Which label you use depends on your audience. If “anarchist” isn’t suitable, some alternatives are: legal polycentrism, self-governance, non-territorial governance, endogenous social institutions, panarchy, etc.